Hillary called out!! Obama scores again!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.
you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

Quick, who was president when the attacks happened? That's right, Bush. Didn't Rice also ignore OBL? Yep.

Spin baby, spin!!

Thats completely dishonest and you know it. Thats like Hillary winning in 08, and then the day after she takes office, Republicans go blame every single thing that happens in Iraq on her. I have no doubt that some would do that, but do you really want to be associated with that crowd?


Well, actually, Clinton wants a phased withdrawl, so unless something drastic happens, I don't think she'll get any flak for Iraq as President.
until she actually steps foot into the white house and quickly learns from her entire National Security and Defense team that withdrawal is not an option... that'll be a h00t!!

bet?

Here is what she specifically said:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,''

"How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

From here - Text

So you see, she didn't say nukes were or were not on the table. She just said that she didn't wanna talk about it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
AFAIC, 9/11 happened because Clinton ignored AQ and the Taliban for eight years. ---is the palehorse74 contention.

Truth be told, Ronald Reagan and GHB did far more than Clinton did to both fail to prevent and cause 911 than Clinton ever did.

And it was GWB was was totally asleep at the switch about Al-Quida between the day elected and until 911 hit.

And GWB is also the fellow who bungles the war on terror and in so doing creates more terrorism.

bah---forget it palehorse74----you blame your own failures on Clinton when you are simply being ineptly led by GWB.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.
you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

Quick, who was president when the attacks happened? That's right, Bush. Didn't Rice also ignore OBL? Yep.

Spin baby, spin!!

Thats completely dishonest and you know it. Thats like Hillary winning in 08, and then the day after she takes office, Republicans go blame every single thing that happens in Iraq on her. I have no doubt that some would do that, but do you really want to be associated with that crowd?


Well, actually, Clinton wants a phased withdrawl, so unless something drastic happens, I don't think she'll get any flak for Iraq as President.
until she actually steps foot into the white house and quickly learns from her entire National Security and Defense team that withdrawal is not an option... that'll be a h00t!!

bet?

Here is what she specifically said:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,''

"How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

From here - Text

So you see, she didn't say nukes were or were not on the table. She just said that she didn't wanna talk about it.
Last year, she clearly said that she would take nukes off the table in dealing with Iran. Her exact words were: "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table"

Now she's saying that "blanket statements," such as her own, are something a President should not do.... WOOPS!
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
AFAIC, 9/11 happened because Clinton ignored AQ and the Taliban for eight years. ---is the palehorse74 contention.

Truth be told, Ronald Reagan and GHB did far more than Clinton did to both fail to prevent and cause 911 than Clinton ever did.

And it was GWB was was totally asleep at the switch about Al-Quida between the day elected and until 911 hit.

And GWB is also the fellow who bungles the war on terror and in so doing creates more terrorism.

bah---forget it palehorse74----you blame your own failures on Clinton when you are simply being ineptly led by GWB.
actually, I don't truly blame 9/11 on anyone in particular. I was happily handing you a taste of your own ignorant medicine (the fact that you and yours blame Bush for everything under the sun, even your own damn impotence!)

As far as I'm truly concerned, everyone since Reagan has had a hand in the creation of AQ and any successes they have had in taking the West down a peg or two. I'm just glad that our current President, mistakes and all, has at least paid attention to our fvcking enemies.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
AFAIC, 9/11 happened because Clinton ignored AQ and the Taliban for eight years. ---is the palehorse74 contention.

Truth be told, Ronald Reagan and GHB did far more than Clinton did to both fail to prevent and cause 911 than Clinton ever did.

And it was GWB was was totally asleep at the switch about Al-Quida between the day elected and until 911 hit.

And GWB is also the fellow who bungles the war on terror and in so doing creates more terrorism.

bah---forget it palehorse74----you blame your own failures on Clinton when you are simply being ineptly led by GWB.

OFT - yet again....
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
AFAIC, 9/11 happened because Clinton ignored AQ and the Taliban for eight years. ---is the palehorse74 contention.

Truth be told, Ronald Reagan and GHB did far more than Clinton did to both fail to prevent and cause 911 than Clinton ever did.

And it was GWB was was totally asleep at the switch about Al-Quida between the day elected and until 911 hit.

And GWB is also the fellow who bungles the war on terror and in so doing creates more terrorism.

bah---forget it palehorse74----you blame your own failures on Clinton when you are simply being ineptly led by GWB.
actually, I don't truly blame 9/11 on anyone in particular. I was happily handing you a taste of your own ignorant medicine (the fact that you and yours blame Bush for everything under the sun, even your own damn impotence!)

As far as I'm truly concerned, everyone since Reagan has had a hand in the creation of AQ and any successes they have had in taking the West down a peg or two. I'm just glad that our current President, mistakes and all, has at least paid attention to our fvcking enemies.

Actually, Clinton tried to take out Osama, but the FBI told him not to. The republicans were all attacking him about it too.If the republicans didn't resist his efforts, osama might have been yesterdays news on 9/11.

Bush, on the other hand, ignored the threat.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
AFAIC, 9/11 happened because Clinton ignored AQ and the Taliban for eight years. ---is the palehorse74 contention.

Truth be told, Ronald Reagan and GHB did far more than Clinton did to both fail to prevent and cause 911 than Clinton ever did.

And it was GWB was was totally asleep at the switch about Al-Quida between the day elected and until 911 hit.

And GWB is also the fellow who bungles the war on terror and in so doing creates more terrorism.

bah---forget it palehorse74----you blame your own failures on Clinton when you are simply being ineptly led by GWB.
actually, I don't truly blame 9/11 on anyone in particular. I was happily handing you a taste of your own ignorant medicine (the fact that you and yours blame Bush for everything under the sun, even your own damn impotence!)

As far as I'm truly concerned, everyone since Reagan has had a hand in the creation of AQ and any successes they have had in taking the West down a peg or two. I'm just glad that our current President, mistakes and all, has at least paid attention to our fvcking enemies.

Reagan had a direct hand in the creation of Al Qaeda. The others either tried and failed to stop it, like Clinton, or ignored it completely like Bush 1 and 2 until 9/11. For neocons, hunting Al Qaeda before 9/11 was simply not interesting because it didn't really require the type of expansion of our defense budget that they wanted. It required very low tech and relatively inexpensive human intelligence. Not enough profit for the defense industry for neocons to get into it.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Here is what she specifically said:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,''

"How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

From here - Text

So you see, she didn't say nukes were or were not on the table. She just said that she didn't wanna talk about it.
Last year, she clearly said that she would take nukes off the table in dealing with Iran. Her exact words were: "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table"

Now she's saying that "blanket statements," such as her own, are something a President should not do.... WOOPS!



I see where you're going: that implicitly, what she said a year ago contradicts what she said recently.

However, explicitly it's not a contradiction because of the reasons I said before -- in particular because she wasn't a presidential candidate back then.

Don't you think it's the explicit that should be what matters?
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
hijack alert . . . .

the bombing of New York's World Trade Center on February 26, 1993:

Mohammed A. Salameh, 30, Nidal Ayyad, 30, Mahmoud Abouhalima, 37, and Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, 31, were convicted in 1994 and each sentenced to 240 years in prison.

Ramzi Yousef was arrested in Islamabad, Pakistan in 1995. On September 5, 1996, Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah were convicted of planning the 'Bojinka' Plot. Life sentences for all. The judge recommended that Yousef serve the entire sentence in solitary confinement.

On November 12, 1997 Yousef was found guilty of masterminding the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

You are now returned to the thread. . . .
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Originally posted by: senseamp
Reagan had a direct hand in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Link to reliable source please . . .


I hope you find Saudi Arabia Facilities from globalsecurity.org suitable for the beginnings of your personal edification. Google is your friend when you overcome whatever is preventing you from educating yourself.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia built military ties during the 1980s. The last 7,000 US troops were removed in 2003. Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia because of Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and many--including Osama bin Laden--use this as a justification for terrorism.

The United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft (F-15s, AWACS, and UH-60 Blackhawks), air defense weaponry (Patriot and Hawk missiles), armored vehicles (M1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles), and other equipment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has had a long-term role in military and civilian construction activities in the Kingdom.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Here is what she specifically said:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,''

"How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

From here - Text

So you see, she didn't say nukes were or were not on the table. She just said that she didn't wanna talk about it.
Last year, she clearly said that she would take nukes off the table in dealing with Iran. Her exact words were: "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table"

Now she's saying that "blanket statements," such as her own, are something a President should not do.... WOOPS!
I see where you're going: that implicitly, what she said a year ago contradicts what she said recently.

However, explicitly it's not a contradiction because of the reasons I said before -- in particular because she wasn't a presidential candidate back then.

Don't you think it's the explicit that should be what matters?
only if you're trying to spin it and attack your opponents! In that regard, she's a pro...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Originally posted by: senseamp
Reagan had a direct hand in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Link to reliable source please . . .


I hope you find Saudi Arabia Facilities from globalsecurity.org suitable for the beginnings of your personal edification. Google is your friend when you overcome whatever is preventing you from educating yourself.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia built military ties during the 1980s. The last 7,000 US troops were removed in 2003. Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia because of Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and many--including Osama bin Laden--use this as a justification for terrorism.

The United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft (F-15s, AWACS, and UH-60 Blackhawks), air defense weaponry (Patriot and Hawk missiles), armored vehicles (M1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles), and other equipment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has had a long-term role in military and civilian construction activities in the Kingdom.
Well, I will take exception to the word "direct," in terms of having a "hand" in their creation...
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Here is what she specifically said:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,''

"How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

From here - Text

So you see, she didn't say nukes were or were not on the table. She just said that she didn't wanna talk about it.
Last year, she clearly said that she would take nukes off the table in dealing with Iran. Her exact words were: "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table"

Now she's saying that "blanket statements," such as her own, are something a President should not do.... WOOPS!
I see where you're going: that implicitly, what she said a year ago contradicts what she said recently.

However, explicitly it's not a contradiction because of the reasons I said before -- in particular because she wasn't a presidential candidate back then.

Don't you think it's the explicit that should be what matters?
only if you're trying to spin it and attack your opponents! In that regard, she's a pro...

In that regard, I think you have to give the nod to Hillary. Her campaign's media team is good enough that they'd be able to frame this in a way so that her old comments don't hurt her (even though as we've agreed, they don't exactcly contradict her more recent statements)
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Bush from the left is my prime reason for supporting him. Keep it up.

Didn't I read this about 7 years ago?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Bush from the left is my prime reason for supporting him. Keep it up.

Didn't I read this about 7 years ago?

Nice try, but that's not even what he said.

It was that he supports Clinton.

Not Bush. I don't even know why people support Bush, but he supports Clinton and the prime reason is the right's dislike of her.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Bush from the left is my prime reason for supporting him. Keep it up.

Didn't I read this about 7 years ago?

Nice try, but that's not even what he said.

It was that he supports Clinton.

Not Bush. I don't even know why people support Bush, but he supports Clinton and the prime reason is the right's dislike of her.

His point was that many Republicans said the same thing about Bush 7 years ago, and look what happened.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Bush from the left is my prime reason for supporting him. Keep it up.

Didn't I read this about 7 years ago?

Nice try, but that's not even what he said.

It was that he supports Clinton.

Not Bush. I don't even know why people support Bush, but he supports Clinton and the prime reason is the right's dislike of her.

I think you missed my point. ;)

JD50 didn't. :D
 

The Lurker

Member
Jul 24, 2007
35
0
0
The big issue in the last election was Vietnam, and now everyone here is making it look like the next one will be about 9/11. Its nice to know we like to focus on the important issues.

By the way, haven't all the Hillary supporters noticed all of her similarities to Bush? Connections to big business (wal-mart), using her husband to get elected (compared to Bush using his father), part of a political machine (does she have her own Karl Rove too? Or is it just Bill?), eagerness to prove that she is "tough" (is she yet another hawk?). The only difference is that she has a D next to her name instead of an R. Why does everyone seem to hate Bush, yet seem so eager to elect a similar person? Does the change of a name make that much of a difference?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Bush from the left is my prime reason for supporting him. Keep it up.

Didn't I read this about 7 years ago?

Nice try, but that's not even what he said.

It was that he supports Clinton.

Not Bush. I don't even know why people support Bush, but he supports Clinton and the prime reason is the right's dislike of her.

His point was that many Republicans said the same thing about Bush 7 years ago, and look what happened.

Well, I think you missed my point. Clinton isn't Bush.

Just because there are people who support her primarily because of the right's dislike of her doesn't
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
heartsurgeon, as much as I may agree with your posts (or not) Dave & others have been asked to not make Republican a pejorative term by changing the spelling, can you stop doing it to the Democrats please?

You know, kinder, gentler?
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Originally posted by: senseamp
Reagan had a direct hand in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Link to reliable source please . . .


I hope you find Saudi Arabia Facilities from globalsecurity.org suitable for the beginnings of your personal edification. Google is your friend when you overcome whatever is preventing you from educating yourself.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia built military ties during the 1980s. The last 7,000 US troops were removed in 2003. Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia because of Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and many--including Osama bin Laden--use this as a justification for terrorism.

The United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft (F-15s, AWACS, and UH-60 Blackhawks), air defense weaponry (Patriot and Hawk missiles), armored vehicles (M1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles), and other equipment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has had a long-term role in military and civilian construction activities in the Kingdom.
Well, I will take exception to the word "direct," in terms of having a "hand" in their creation...

Exception denied,Chief . . . . :)

Frankenstein the CIA created
January 17, 1999

When Clement Rodney Hampton-el, a hospital technician from Brooklyn, New Jersey, returned home from the war in Afghanistan in 1989, he told friends his only desire was to return. Though he had been wounded in the arm and leg by a Russian shell, he said he had failed. He had not achieved martyrdom in the name of Islam.

Hampton-el was described by prosecutors as a skilled bomb-maker. It was hardly surprising. In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

He was not alone. American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

Since the fall of the Soviet puppet government in 1992, another 2,500 are believed to have passed through the camps. They are now run by an assortment of Islamic extremists, including Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist.

Wouldn't it be nice to FOIA this information from the US Gov't? Oh, darn, that's right. GWB REclassified information regarding his father's term as head of the CIA and as VP for President Ronald Reagan.

And to stay on topic I tend to agree with The Lurker. Comparably, H Clinton has much, much more in common with GWB than Bush himself has with conservatism. That's what makes comments in this thread so laffable when Clinton is associated with liberalism . . . . . :)

 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Hillary from the right is my prime reason for supporting her. Keep it up.

That is a pretty sad way to go through life. Just proves that conservatives are guided by ideologies, while liberals like yourself are guided by nothing but emotions.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I think any politician who reaffirms America's policy of not using nuclear weapons except as a response in kind is probably saying the right thing. Other nations who could possibly be overrun by invading conventional armies might look at it differently, but that hasn't been the case for the US since Lincoln's time...

While some Americans, particularly those suffering from the intellectual snakebite of talk radio seem to think that initiating actual armed conflict with nukes would be perfectly fine, the hypocrisy in that is beyond the pale, the craven moral weakness in advocating or even threatening it desperate bluster or worse.

Hilllary's 2006 remarks echo my sentiments, while her more recent ones were merely an opportunity to attack a rival... I'll rate that as unfortunate exploitation, while the current admin's statements in that regard are clearly a lot worse...

Don't think I'm some huge fan of Hillary, I'm not, but compared to her repub rivals, she's a gem... Giuliani will never get the nomination, Romney is a proto-fascist, and Thompson a fear-mongering neocon flip-flopper in his own right... cubans with suitcase nukes is easily the lamest reference of the current race...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Originally posted by: senseamp
Reagan had a direct hand in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Link to reliable source please . . .


I hope you find Saudi Arabia Facilities from globalsecurity.org suitable for the beginnings of your personal edification. Google is your friend when you overcome whatever is preventing you from educating yourself.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia built military ties during the 1980s. The last 7,000 US troops were removed in 2003. Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia because of Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and many--including Osama bin Laden--use this as a justification for terrorism.

The United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft (F-15s, AWACS, and UH-60 Blackhawks), air defense weaponry (Patriot and Hawk missiles), armored vehicles (M1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles), and other equipment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has had a long-term role in military and civilian construction activities in the Kingdom.
Well, I will take exception to the word "direct," in terms of having a "hand" in their creation...

Exception denied,Chief . . . . :)

Frankenstein the CIA created
January 17, 1999

When Clement Rodney Hampton-el, a hospital technician from Brooklyn, New Jersey, returned home from the war in Afghanistan in 1989, he told friends his only desire was to return. Though he had been wounded in the arm and leg by a Russian shell, he said he had failed. He had not achieved martyrdom in the name of Islam.

Hampton-el was described by prosecutors as a skilled bomb-maker. It was hardly surprising. In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

He was not alone. American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

Since the fall of the Soviet puppet government in 1992, another 2,500 are believed to have passed through the camps. They are now run by an assortment of Islamic extremists, including Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist.

Wouldn't it be nice to FOIA this information from the US Gov't? Oh, darn, that's right. GWB REclassified information regarding his father's term as head of the CIA and as VP for President Ronald Reagan.

And to stay on topic I tend to agree with The Lurker. Comparably, H Clinton has much, much more in common with GWB than Bush himself has with conservatism. That's what makes comments in this thread so laffable when Clinton is associated with liberalism . . . . . :)
I still take exception, and now even moreso.

AFAIK, based on all first-hand testimony, the U.S. never had direct conact with OBL during the Muj's war against the Soviets. The ISI was our go-between, and they themselves have testified that they did not direct any of our arms, training, and money to OBL&Co. He had his own funds and sources throughout the Arab world.

The majority of our support went, via the ISI, to other Mujahideen leaders such as Gen. Mossad.

Even if he later attended or ran one of the camps we set up a decade earlier, it would still be a tough sell to say that we had a "direct hand" in creating AQ, or supporting OBL. that would be reaching...